Short thread 1. Former VP chief of staff here.
I remember thinking, when I took over in the summer of 1989 as VP Quayle's chief of staff, how impatient I was with the long, detailed and hypothetical continuity of government (COG) briefings and exercises. I had work to do!
2. I recall saying this in passing to someone in the White House who'd been on VP Bush's staff. He stopped me, took me into his office, and told me in some detail about March 30, 1981. He said I needed to take this seriously. Other stuff seemed urgent, but this was important.
3. So I took COG planning seriously; thankfully it never really came into play. But there were a couple of times when President Bush was ill or looked as if he might have to be hospitalized, and I remember talking with the president's chief of staff about what might happen.
4. These are awkward conversations and there weren't a lot of them. But we knew the importance of signaling continuity of government, of reassuring the country, and of ensuring everyone in government understood the chain of command if the president were briefly out of commission.
5. Before he flies off Monday to his debate, it would seem appropriate for VP Pence to convene a Cabinet meeting (real or virtual), one to which the president could call in for a bit if he's up to it, to make sure everyone is carrying on, and let the country know that's occurred.
6. (By the way, why is the VP flying to Salt Lake City for the debate? I know we have wonderful secure communications and the like--but still...The debate could be held in DC, and the VP could be here in case of foreign policy or other emergencies. That would seem more prudent.)
7. In any case, in all the genuine personal and political drama of the moment, we shouldn't forget about the important continuity of government considerations.
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Like everyone else who's lived through the last decade, I've learned to doubt that anything Trump does, however gross, or any manifestation of Trumpism, however appalling, will make a difference.
But...maybe?
2. Maybe the disgusting comments about Puerto Rico and Hispanic Americans in general will cause some voters in Pennsylvania to turn away from Trump?
3. Maybe the racism about black Americans will remind some voters in Michigan which candidate respects them and which doesn't.
1. Good for the U.S. (though need to get rid of debt ceiling in 2025).
2. Good for Biden.
Re policy, domestic spending freezes no worse than the CRs that a GOP House would have produced. And over the four years spending on liberal priorities up.
2. Good for Biden (cont.)
Re politics: That it's two year deal very good. And if some on the left are unhappy, that doesn't hurt his case to moderate swing voters that they should vote for him again in 2024. Especially if there'll be a GOP House and/or Senate, which is likely.
3. Bad for Trump and Trumpism.
McCarthy's willingness to make the deal suggests that he (and other GOP elected leaders) will prioritize making the case for a GOP Congress in 2024 as needed to check (but also in a pinch to work with!) a Democratic president, a la Newt in 1996.
"[Delight] runs the risk of neglect at precisely the moment when delight might be most culturally beneficial...Slaves of anxiety and fear, surrounded by reasons for pessimism, we are in need of it. I would like to say a few words in defense of delight."
"The Marriage of Figaro is perhaps the last word on delight...By placing the laurel wreaths of artistic perfection on a comedy, Figaro is an invitation, in its details and in aggregate, to ponder the exquisiteness of delight."
"But it is this same fallible Count who...when confronted with his wife, when recognizing her, steps away from comedy. His request for forgiveness—the music leaves no doubt about this at all—is from the heart."
I'm less certain than @mkimmage that the request is from the heart.
"We must confess to being somewhat alarmed. Do our leaders, in the U.S. and Germany, have the sense of urgency that they ought to have? Do our leaders, in the U.S. and Germany, have the clarity of vision they might have?"
"This is no time for complacency. It’s time to reassert our unequivocal support for President Zelenskyy and the elected government in Kyiv. It’s actually time for more support for Ukraine and more pressure on Russia."
It's understandable that President Biden focused on domestic policy in his State of the Union speech. As a consequence perhaps, much was left unsaid about the state of the world. In the coming days and weeks, Biden should find an occasion to address these topics:
1. Iran. Not mentioned in the State of the Union. The president should express support for the brave women and men of Iran demanding freedom and democracy for their country. He could do so by sending a message to--or dropping by!-- the event Friday at Georgetown University...
1a. ...where leading pro-democracy Iranian activists who are abroad will be joining together to show unity and support for the demonstrators at home. And there are practical steps the Administration could take to increase pressure on the regime and to help the demonstrators.
What if we had a Republican Party that behaved like a loyal opposition?
What if leading Republicans in Congress, and prominent Republicans who'd served in the previous administration, cared more about weakening President Xi than attacking President Biden?
2. Yes, Republicans would raise questions about the Administration's handling of the balloon. They'd say they looked forward to learning more from key defense and intelligence officials about what happened and why, and that they reserved the right to criticize President Biden.
3. But they would emphasize this point: Even if Biden could have done more, that the balloon mission was a failure and an embarrassment for the Xi regime. That it was a foolish act--perhaps even an act of desperation--by Xi and his cronies.